If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I just booted up XP Pro on this laptop and the wireless connected automatically.

I'm sure there will be some stubborn idiots who will post this is trolling or argue how Linux has caught up with wireless...blah, blah, blah...

Yes, integrated graphics is a worse situation but that's mainly because of major influences from Mikeysoft and how tied they are to Windoze... big money, there.

Wireless?

Windows obviously enjoys better hardware support with more than just wireless...

But wireless in linux is really not in that bad shape right now, you are really exaggerating and borderline trolling. If you do just 30 seconds of research before getting a laptop your wireless will work out of the box. Yes some wireless chipsets have issues, but many work perfectly. My wireless has worked out of the box with linux on 3 different laptops in the past few years. I boot up my laptops and wireless connects automatically.

Last issue I had was years ago on ubuntu 6.x with a broadcomm chip that didn't work at all, simply learned my lesson and stayed away from broadcomm since then, even on windows.

And seriosuly, using words like "mikeysoft" and "windoze" makes you look extremely immature.

Windows obviously enjoys better hardware support with more than just wireless...

But wireless in linux is really not in that bad shape right now, you are really exaggerating and borderline trolling. If you do just 30 seconds of research before getting a laptop your wireless will work out of the box. Yes some wireless chipsets have issues, but many work perfectly. My wireless has worked out of the box with linux on 3 different laptops in the past few years. I boot up my laptops and wireless connects automatically.

Last issue I had was years ago on ubuntu 6.x with a broadcomm chip that didn't work at all, simply learned my lesson and stayed away from broadcomm since then, even on windows.

And seriosuly, using words like "mikeysoft" and "windoze" makes you look extremely immature.

Not trolling at all.

On the contrary, stating someone can 'do this/that' within 30 seconds and get it to work is very insulting. Try telling someone this to anyone who is having problems with a project and you'll be lucky to get a more polite response than this.

Anyway, not sure why I'm replying since the responses to me seem to be getting worse. Not sure why.

I guess I've read worse here, though. ;-)

On a more positive note, my wireless started working but I have no explanation. I have two theories, not sure how possible they are. One, I am wondering if there is some bug relating to the kernel and the broadcom driver. The other (which may be applicable to the first) is that there is some switch that Windows turned on. The reason I'm speculating on that is that I booted up Windows XP Pro just to make sure I'm sane (i.e. that the wireless card is even 'still' working) and the wireless initiated immediately. Noting that, I hit restart and let it boot into the Linux install (Lubuntu - no real reason to choose that... I got tired of live distro versions and wanted to reboot a real install). Darn thing had wireless activated and I could choose my wireless network (it scanned and displayed others).

I don't consider a solution, though, because I am not sure how long it will last. It will be interesting to see, though.

With all that said, I concede that it seems many Linux users are satisfied or at least complacent with their Intel wifi hardware/drivers so any new laptop, I'd probably make sure it had that. Atheros, as 2nd alternative.

When I 'mocked' Microsoft, I was just being sarcastic as the graphics hardware is fully supported in Windows (where the money is) so relax...

On the contrary, stating someone can 'do this/that' within 30 seconds and get it to work is very insulting. Try telling someone this to anyone who is having problems with a project and you'll be lucky to get a more polite response than this.

Anyway, not sure why I'm replying since the responses to me seem to be getting worse. Not sure why.

I guess I've read worse here, though. ;-)

On a more positive note, my wireless started working but I have no explanation. I have two theories, not sure how possible they are. One, I am wondering if there is some bug relating to the kernel and the broadcom driver. The other (which may be applicable to the first) is that there is some switch that Windows turned on. The reason I'm speculating on that is that I booted up Windows XP Pro just to make sure I'm sane (i.e. that the wireless card is even 'still' working) and the wireless initiated immediately. Noting that, I hit restart and let it boot into the Linux install (Lubuntu - no real reason to choose that... I got tired of live distro versions and wanted to reboot a real install). Darn thing had wireless activated and I could choose my wireless network (it scanned and displayed others).

I don't consider a solution, though, because I am not sure how long it will last. It will be interesting to see, though.

With all that said, I concede that it seems many Linux users are satisfied or at least complacent with their Intel wifi hardware/drivers so any new laptop, I'd probably make sure it had that. Atheros, as 2nd alternative.

When I 'mocked' Microsoft, I was just being sarcastic as the graphics hardware is fully supported in Windows (where the money is) so relax...

If you plan on using a 3rd party os that isn't supported on the machine you are buying, its the user's responsibility to make sure the hardware is compatible.

Finding a machine with compatible wireless is not hard, at all. The only issues I tend to have are with suspend/sound not working out of the box, but is usually easily fixable.

What is happening in the recent times with Linux?
It seems that those days of solid rock stability in the Linux desktop are falling in the past. As I see this history, the decadence started more or less, at the time when kde4 was released; being kde3.5 a very powerful and stable desktop, the 4th release was no more than a technology preview that only recently have reached a quality point just between an alpha and a beta. Even now, only for example, we have not a printer administration panel like that one in 3.5.

Sometimes I think I am using a different KDE 4 to most people 4.0 was a dog. 4.1 was usable but bad. 4.2 was production ready. There were some issues with oxgygen and nVidia in 4.5 but that seems to have been sorted. I don't own a printer so I didn't notice the lack. But I do have control modules for things like my wacom tablet - that I never had in 3.x. KDE 4 in general is far and away better than kde 3.5 ever was - you couldn't pay me to go back.

In the current times, it seems that overlay bars, effects, and many other visual improvements are by far more important than hardware support. But people seems to forget that the first you need to display the "pleasant" effects is a WORKING desktop and OS.

repeat after me "They are not monolithic". The skillset to develop nice interfaces is not the same skillset to write device drivers. You can't tell people to stop working on one and start working on the other. Linux has always lagged a bit behind in hardware support . The upside of that is that old hardware tends to be supported for a lot longer - I get given hardware reasonably often because there are no longer windows drivers for it.

Yes the situation with hybrid graphics on laptops at the moment is a problem. NVidia support Linux because they have a lot of high end 3d customers who use Linux (Hollywood). Features which are not needed by these customers are not a high priority for them. Linux is not a high priority for ATI full stop (though they are getting better). The opensource developers are working on this but reverse engineering graphics hardware is not easy and getting the kernel infrastructure there in the first place isn't complete yet.

If you would have to buy a computer now, what would you buy to run Linux?
A NVIDIA laptop? Optimus not so much supported, Hybrid performance is bad, to the level that it don't works at all...

I would by this one and not use hybrid graphics- But then again my work more or less depends on there being descent OpenGL drivers available all the time. I am aware that this does cut down on battery life but this seems the best compromise.

Then, the question again, what is happening? You want a Linux computer to work with it, not to show the superb desktop to your friends, while crossing your fingers willing that the X server don't crashes again this time, or the system doesn't hang.
I think that Desktop developer companies like ubuntu, fedora, kde or gnome and others are missing the point here, as user experience is very important, but stability is the FIRST BIG part of it, and no the effects, shadows, or where to place the buttons.

KDE and Gnome are projects, Ubuntu and Fedora are products. Canonical and Red Hat are Companies. Neither of these do hardware themselves they sometimes sell on to OEMs in which case you can be reasonably sure that the hardware has been tested in advance otherwise you are expecting their software for which you are not paying will just work with what ever random pieces of hardware you happen to have lying around. Mac can get away with things because they are also a hardware manufacturer and support only a very limited range of hardware. Windows can get away with this because they *are* the market - if your device doesn't work with Windows then it doesn't sell. Canonical and particularly Red Hat do pay people to work on device drivers but they don't have the money to pay for people to write drivers for every piece of hardware in existence.

Now having said that I am personally happy with the stability of my Linux systems perhaps I have been lucky or perhaps i have developed instincts for which hardware to get. I have had bad hardware in Linux Systems, Windows Systems and Macs and all suck equally when this is the case.

Atheros WAS very good but now they have so many chipsets now. I still read in networking sections about people having problems. Intel seems like the only one that doesn't have so many wireless chips... yes, they have new ones but it just requires firmware and I suspect they have one or two cover a bunch.

And you have all of these chipsets to judge? Like I said, there are many problems with wireless on winblows, so your point is dumb like hell.

I just booted up XP Pro on this laptop and the wireless connected automatically.

I'm sure there will be some stubborn idiots who will post this is trolling or argue how Linux has caught up with wireless...blah, blah, blah...

You're an only idiot here. The crap like xp wasn't even able to connect automatically unlike Linux with my Atheros based card. I had to use third party program. You're trolling moron, because you don't accept the truth - there are many problems on winblows related to wireless. What's more funny my Atheros wireless card worked far better in Linux - I was able to play Quake3 without lag 20-60ms while in winblows it was higher and after minute or so it grew up to one second from some strange reason. Messed up ip stack or some bug, I guess.